Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
I don’t know what this will do for his chances in November, but I think it’s a gutsy move at this point.
Sorry for my ignorance here, I thought he had backed it already, or had he not stated definitively up until this point?
In any case it’s a positive move and I applaud him.
(Andrew): He said once, back when he was a state senator from Illinois, that he supported gay marriage. Then, when he was running for Senator, he said he believed that marriage was between a man and a woman (citing his religious beliefs), but he thought gays should have equal rights through civil unions, last year he said that his feelings about gay marriage were “evolving”...and now he’s come out in favor.
I heard that the NC amendment had significant support among the African American religious demographic. I am guessing it would have failed otherwise. I have not seen any polls that that demographic is switching from Obama after repealing ‘Don’t ask don’t tell’... Likely helps him with moderates, gay republicans and their families and so forth. Oh yeah, and it was the right thing to do
(Andrew): Yeah…I don’t see him losing much black support over this.
(Andrew): He said once, back when he was a state senator from Illinois, that he supported gay marriage. Then, when he was running for Senator, he said he believed that marriage was between a man and a woman (citing his religious beliefs), but he thought gays should have equal rights through civil unions, last year he said that his feelings about gay marriage were “evolving”...and now he’s come out in favor.
What you described is not an evolving position, rather one that serves his political interests. His changing positions do not match his changed thinking. It matches his political needs. He manipulated gays in 2008 and later kept them at distance, now due to dwindling enthusiasm in his re-election bid and hands being forced by his VP and others, he comes out for it. It was a move to meet his needs, not the needs of the gays. Still, he prefaces it as a personal opinion, and it is all up to the States. So, why is it being hailed as a brave move in the media?
The right was all over him a long time ago, when he curtailed the Justice Departments, defense in courts, regarding the Defense of Marriage Act. (DOMA) No one should be shocked that he has the guts to say with words, what his actions have been speaking all along. I have to admit to being an Obama, fanboy. This is just another reason to be one. Actions speak louder than words and his actions have preceded his recent statements. Even those that disagree with his stance, should at least hold some respect for that virtue alone.
His timing was perfect. As NC. shows just how backwards a voting block can actually be in the 21st century. In a place where they tout less intrusive government and a longing for more freedom, above all else They then demand the government to use its power to restrict freedom. How could Obama not say something? The rest of the country could and in all likelihood will, follow suit.
I think the lines have already been drawn for the most part. There is a large collective of Americans, that would complain of the impending overpopulation explosion if Obama, found the cure for cancer.
One thing that struck me in the print copy of Obama’s statement was that the reporting sites put the word “evolved” in scare quotes. What the hell is that? In one piece they quoted Obama several times using the word “evolves” and “evolved” and each time they put double quotation marks around the words. What does this mean? Are they questioning whether a view can indeed ‘evolve’ or are they just scared of that word?
The basic idea, to me, is that someone has a right, justification, etc., to impose his or her views on others, when the behavior of others does present a clear and immediate threat on oneself or society. That seems not the case for gay marriage; but there is a clear and immediate threat from those who would do so in banning or punishing gay marriage.
Here is the series of different positions Obama took on gay marriage:
- In 1996, about a decade after finding Jesus with the help of his adopted uncle Reverend Wright whom he later disowned, Obama told a gay newspaper, “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” Very bold indeed.
- By 1998, the ambitious towards higher political office, Obama revised his views. With an eye on higher office, he was now “undecided” on the issue.
- In 2004, Obama, the candidate for U.S. Senator was telling that same gay newspaper, “I am not a supporter of gay marriage.”
- In 2006 his published book “Audacity of Hope” was written, he had to “remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided.”
- In August 2008, at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, he said “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman,” The new and improved Obama said “Now, for me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union. God’s in the mix”
- Between 2008 and spring 2012, his position on marriage was said to be “evolving,” and announced that he believed same sex marriage should be left up to the States, which is exactly how it was before he said it.
All of the spinmeisters in the Media, hailed his statement as a momentous occasion and ignored his ever changing position, calculated to serve his own selfish interests, as has been in the past.
When push comes to shove, “politics” in a representative democracy involves trying to influence public opinion, legislation, and judicial rulings within the framework of what is legally, culturally, constitutionally, socially, and—yes, politically—possible.
Adjusting positions, strategically positioning oneself, and trying to guide public sentiment and legislation within those parameters is what politicians do. At least the smart ones. It’s called “politics” and that’s kinda how it works.
When push comes to shove, “politics” in a representative democracy involves trying to influence public opinion, legislation, and judicial rulings within the framework of what is legally, culturally, constitutionally, socially, and—yes, politically—possible.
Adjusting positions, strategically positioning oneself, and trying to guide public sentiment and legislation within those parameters is what politicians do. At least the smart ones. It’s called “politics” and that’s kinda how it works.
One can’t reasonably disagree with what is said above. Not only did you describe Obama’s changing positions as “influence public opinion” “Adjusting positions, strategically positioning oneself, and trying to guide public sentiment and legislation”... you also called him smart for doing it.
In fact, your position mirrors the reports in Main Stream Media, so far as how Obama positions are reported. The latest phrase was “evolving position”.
Question: Why is it “evolving” when Obama changes his position, but called “flip flopping” when republican does it? Neither you nor the Mainstream Media are politicians. Dont you need to process information objectively, consistently and truthfully to serve the public interests?
